Allowing pushing to repo to accommodate writing the paper?

[bstienen]

The repository houses both the code for the high-dimensional-sampling package and the source code for the paper. After a disucssion with Will (#1) I made the master branch of the repository only changable by pull request. For the code of the package this is absolutely awesome, for the paper less so, as it halts the work people do on it a bit. I already got the first questions about why people were not able to push their paper additions to the repo.

I can of course allow pushing to the repository again, losing the advantages it gives to code stability. On the other hand, it might also be worthwhile to move the paper to a system like overleaf, which -- with its in-browser editor -- might be easier to use for most people.

[williamjameshandley]

It probably would be best to separate paper and code.

I approve of overleaf. I mislike GUIs, but overleaf also has an offline git interface that seems to work reasonably well, so is a good compromise for all users.

[williamjameshandley]

They could also submit paper changes through pull requests to this repo, which would give people a gentle introduction to the PR github workflow

[bstienen]

Given that probably a lot of people will work on the paper, I think that teaching everyone the github PR workflow would require a dedicated effort. Might work and I support the spread of github knowledge in the physics community. I am just a tad bit concerned it might make contributing to the paper harder than it could be. I could argue either way and in the end it comes down to personal preference I think. What do you think @mjw63 ?

[mjw63]

Sorry for the delay- just got back from holiday. For the paper, I'm inclined to make it as easy as possible to edit it, which means either using a separate repo for the paper, or switching to overleaf.

I like the overleaf option- what do others think?